Ramblings on art and its definition

I was really happy to go to the Bauhaus Archives today. I didn't really know what it was beforehand, but I found myself getting quite excited as I kept exploring the art. Last year I visited MOMA in New York and realized that I really love abstract art. I fell in love with Vassily Kandinsky's work and I bought a book about him. One of his pieces is currently the background on my computer. I love his use of color, shape, line, composition, shading, etc. (many of you can probably talk about the technical aspects of art better than I can).

Anyway, I was very pleased to see some of his work at the museum today. I did not realize that he taught many students there. I think that his work is what art should be. Expressive. Even though some of his art might be simple just by looking at it, it still expresses a thought, a feeling, an impulse. He is able to transfer his creativity onto paper.

I've noticed that I really like art that is super colorful. I've taken a lot of pictures this week of art that has so many different colors that fill up the space. It's a feast for my eyes.

Ancient Egyptian necklace from Neues Museum

Fern das Gebirge, 1952

August Macke, Walk among Flowers, 1912

Gottfried Wilhelm Voelcker, Still Life with Basket of Fruit, 1827

I guess lately I've been thinking about what art is (and what good art is), because the definition can sometimes be elusive, or can be a number of things. According to
Google, art is "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

I boil it down to: expression of skill and imagination.

I think the key word here for me is "and." Anyone can be imaginative. And anyone can have skill. But the combination of the two perhaps is what makes art good. In the painting above of the fruit bowl (Voelcker), I am struck by the skill of the painter. He manages to create such a lush, idealized, life-like bowl of fruit by using just the right amount of color, shading, line, composition, lighting, etc. But it is combined with his creative skill of choosing how to use all these technical skills. I wonder if the painting would be the same, or have the same effect on me, had he not had the technical skill to make the painting look so real. And vice versa, if he used all the painting techniques he knows, but lacks the creativity to use them, what would happen?

And perhaps it is an over-simplification to compartmentalize art this way. Perhaps these two sides of art are complementary of one another, or even one-in-the-same.

For actors, our technique lies in our body, voice, gesture, movement, pitch, speech, facial expression, the list goes on. It can be so easy to use these elements technically. But the creativity comes in the way they are used.

Similarly, I've also been thinking about the shows we've been seeing and wondering what makes a show good, or what makes a show bad. Perhaps the aforementioned questions and ramblings can help with this. I guess I didn't like Kabale und Liebe because it was lacking imagination (except for some of the actors). The show had a lot of interesting technical elements, I guess... but I think they were just used poorly, because I didn't feel a creative spirit involved. It was edgy for the sake of being edgy. On the other hand, I found Richard III to be exciting and so interesting to watch because the actors' and director's imaginations melded into one with all the technical elements (dirt, food, mic, camera, music, costumes...).

I would love to hear anyone's thoughts on this, or if you have different idea of what art is.